He has arrived
at a deal with the BBC over how to deal with the ghastly problem of modernising
the licence fee, and he has appointed a committee of eight great and good
people to look into the knotty problem of the BBC Royal Charter renewal. He’s also
responsible for a green paper on the BBC which asks fundamental questions about
what it should do. He’s an enthusiast who cannot believe his luck. Maybe he
does resemble a teenager given the car keys, but at least he’s passed his test
in the shape of chairing the CMS Select Committee on the future of the BBC
which went on for yonks and listened to dozens of submissions.

And being
an adolescent isn’t all bad, despite Lord Patten (clearly so much older) calling
him names. Edward III came to the throne aged 15 and did very well. But
whoah – we are talking Culture Secretaries here, not Kings of England. Even so,
John Whittingdale has managed to affirm his authority, and gather a court
around him. By seizing the moment, he has left his critics gasping and put
Baron Tony Hall in the unfortunate position of vowing that this should never
happen again. Even though it happened this time, and the time before. So what
has Whittingdale done in his short reign that has caused such disarray amongst
the over-mighty subjects?

Firstly
he has done a swift and silent deal with the BBC, so that the corporation will
pay for free telly for the over 75s. This will cost the BBC £650 million per
annum, rising yearly, out of the licence fee (which brings in £3.7 million). Personally
I think it is mad, as I know many over-75s who could easily pay for this, and I
very much doubt they will voluntarily stump up, as the BBC hopes. But that was
what the government wanted. In return for funding these oldies to get BBC Three
et al, the BBC will (hopefully) be helped to find a way to extend the licence
fee to iPlayer users. This will get back the ‘guestimated’ £150 million the BBC
is losing because some households won’t pay the licence fee on the grounds that
they only use ‘catch-up’. On top of this there is a guarantee that the licence
fee will go up with inflation and not be touched for the next, or maybe the
last, five years of its existence.

Actually,
this sort of horse-trading leading to ‘top slicing’ of the licence fee revenue has
been debated with the BBC since 2008 at least – and the assumption that the
licence fee belongs to the BBC is erroneous, even if for decades the BBC was
the sole beneficiary. Licence fee payers pay for receiving live TV, not for
receiving the BBC, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the elected
government could and should have a say in how this money is spent. Anyway, Tony
Hall says the BBC hasn’t really lost anything by this deal, despite what he
laments as its lack of transparency. He hints that he was mugged by a wicked
highwayman, yet was smart enough to get something back for “the millions of
people who use the BBC everyday.”

Lord
Hall positions this as a 'them and us' fight - as if the government didn’t want
to give something back to millions of people, when they have just given £145 a
year back to the over 75s! But the point
is that Lord Hall doesn’t represent those millions of people and the government
does. Of course I’m not saying that the government gets it right either, but at
least we can vote them out after five years, unlike the BBC management. As for
transparency and public consultation, nothing could have been less transparent
than Tony Hall’s own appointment, which was done by a tap on the shoulder from
the aforementioned Lord Patten. And anyway how could you make this licence fee issue
more transparent? A debate in Parliament, which would be won by the Government
anyway? Orotund voices on Question Time? A phone in on Radio 5 live? A
referendum? Or even something on ITV?

At much
the same time the newly crowned John Whittingdale announced the names of the
eight people he had appointed to his Privy Council. Around the boy king we have
in reverse alphabetical order: Stewart Purvis, formerly Chief Executive of ITN,
and Ofcom and City University; Lopa Patel of Diversity UK; Alex Mahon, former
Chief Executive of Shine; Darren Henley of the Arts Council; Ashley Highfield,
Chief Executive of Johnston Press and former Director of Digital Development at
the BBC itself; Andrew Fisher of Shazam; Colette Bowe, former chairwoman of
Ofcom; and Dawn Airey, Vice President of Yahoo. So what is there not to like?

A lot,
it would seem. The Times reported
that “five of the eight have either publicly criticised the BBC or called for
its reform”. Well, so has Tony Hall himself, notably in October 2013. But this
time battle lines seem to be being drawn up with Lord Hall issuing rallying
cries to defend his territory.

Public
enemy number two (after Whittingdale) seems to be Dawn Airey who has always
been a bit of a media magnet. Her style could be described as forthright and
she has said in the past that the BBC should concentrate on public service and
not compete with commercial channels. But then again, everyone who works in the
broadcast commercial sector has said something like this at some time or other,
particularly when competing with a cast of thousands from Broadcasting House.

She has also allegedly mentioned the dreaded word subscription. But as David
Elstein consistently argues, that might be the best way for the BBC in its
second century. It’s certainly worth discussing. It’s an issue swept under the
carpet, and David believes that the debate was deliberately shelved by the BBC
after a Panorama programme in 2005 where 37% of those surveyed wanted some sort
of subscription. But a subscription fee to cover add-on services might work
perfectly well – a two-tier licence tax if you like. It would certainly reveal
what the millions of people want, whom Lord Hall is protecting from their own
government!

But these
things cannot be calmly discussed because now there is an alarmist reaction to
the Eight, fired up by BBC quotes, not least Lord Hall’s combative talk of a
“tough fight ahead”. But why is it a fight? Almost everyone wants to preserve
the BBC. Most people value it. Almost everyone wants to see it continue. But in
its fear the BBC is setting up this phoney war.

For
example, the allegation that John Whittingdale said The Voice programme should be scrapped came from – someone who
works at The Voice! John Whittingdale
doesn’t seem to have mentioned that particular programme at all. He has
allegedly said that chasing 90% ratings is not what the BBC should be doing,
but a lot of decent pro-BBC people might agree. We all rejoice when an outsider
like Bake Off wins the nation’s
hearts – well done! But actively striving to knock ITV off the screen isn’t
cricket, when you have a whacking great subsidy and they have declining
advertising revenues. Annihilating the competition isn’t what the BBC is there
for.

Similarly, in Tony Hall’s announcement of the BBC’s annual report he says “it’s a clash
between two different views of the future. Some will argue for a much
diminished BBC - a view that’s often put forward by people with their own
narrow commercial interests or ideological preconceptions.”

This is
stunningly misrepresentative, not to mention a little offensive. How about
people who want to argue for a much diminished BBC because they just think the
BBC is too big? Or has outgrown its strength? Or is dissipating its value? Or
those who want plurality of voices? Or want to decide for themselves what is in
their national heritage? Or feel the BBC distorts the market? Or want to see
competition? Why do any of these legitimate concerns constitute “narrow
commercial interests or ideological preconceptions”? They are legitimate views.
Lord Hall seems to be putting up the barricades and saying that if you are not
for us, you are against us.

So are
the Whittigdale Eight against the BBC? I
know little about Alex Mahon except that she seems to have a very respectable
background as an executive with Shine, the company founded by Elisabeth Murdoch,
the one with the famous father. Note: she is not at Shine any more, but she does
have a PhD in Physics, and is also a medical doctor which seems so amazing for
a broadcasting executive, that I fear I may have confused two different Alex
Mahons on Wikipedia! I can’t find any quotes from her, against the BBC.

Darren Henley brings the commercial radio
knowledge to the party. In its submission to the CMS Committee, his alma mater Classic
FM says “The position of BBC Radio 3 in the marketplace means that the BBC
occupies a potentially market-distorting role in terms of the commissioning,
broadcast and promotion of live classical music in the UK, either on radio or
via digital online broadcasts.” It is useful that one of the Eight has personal
experience of competing against BBC radio and this is an issue the BBC can’t
ignore. But it doesn’t mean that Radio Three should be closed down or that Darren
Henley is anti BBC.

Lopa Patel, according to TheTimes, is “Founder and Chief executive
of NewAsianPost.com and the think-tank Diversity UK.” Everything I have read
about her sounds great and I can’t imagine she has “narrow commercial interests
or ideological perceptions” against the BBC. Andrew Fisher looks like a cool
dude in his picture, and is chairman of Shazam “an app that helps to identify
songs”. His opinion of BBC Playlister would be interesting, but that is just a
tiny bit of the BBC empire.

I have worked with or met the others several times. Ashley
Highfield is the only person in the Eight who has worked for the BBC, as Director
of New Media and Technology. He is now CEO of Johnson Press. In this context
the most interesting thing about Ashley is that he worked for the BBC and left
by choice. So he sees the corporation as just another step on his career path,
which is unusual in itself. So many people who go to work for the BBC become
completely besotted with it and can see no career outside it, so we can expect
informed objectivity from Ashley. He’s more creative than techie. I was
surprised when he went into print media, but if anyone is going to have an
innovative approach it is him.

Colette Bowe was a much respected Chair of Ofcom. She
has gone as far as to suggest that the licence fee might be shared by other
news providers who might take a small slice to subsidise their own coverage and
provide another voice. This recalls Tony Hall’s statement in 2013 that the BBC
should be “the pre-eminent provider of trusted news
and information, not just locally, not just nationally but all over the world.”Why? There is a very strong argument
for having more than one strong national news provider. And raising this issue
is not anti BBC.

The last person I know in the Whittingdale
Eight is Stewart Purvis who ran ITN when it really did give the BBC a run for
its money on news. Stewart organised, with OurBeeb, the speed debates about the
future of the BBC at City University London. At these debates Tony Hall, James
Purnell, James Harding, John Birt, Michael Lyons, Christopher Bland, Diane
Coyle and Michael Grade all spoke. There was a spirit of free thinking,
question and answer, a search for a solution. There were no battle cries and no
barricades. His input would be of great value to the BBC.

In my view the Whittingdale Eight would
make a good line-up for a panel show. Four men, four women. Seven graduates. Only
one Oxbridge. Music, arts, news, regulation, diversity. It’s the advisory group
from central casting. They are, as far as I can tell, decent sensible people.
They care about the BBC without having a vested or emotional interest. They
will be good advisers to King Edward – sorry John Whittingdale - and I for one
trust them.

The BBC is facing troubling times as
technology erodes live viewing; news becomes more personalised making balance
difficult; and the demand for sophisticated international drama and
entertainment grows but the demand is met by supply from other outlets. However
you look at it spending on public service broadcasting across the board is
already diminished, and public service broadcasting itself has to be rethought
as the public gets its information in different ways. There is a lot to
discuss. So please discuss it, and don’t do battle. The Whittingdale Eight
could be the answer not the problem, and with their input, the future of a
strong organised, competitive BBC could be assured. Tony Hall needs to talk to
them, elicit their views and respect them, not withdraw into his fortress and
surround himself with his own intellectual guards.

Similarly John Whittigdale should not
become entrenched. Edward III reigned into his dotage and left chaos in
the shape of four competing sons. His reign eventually led to the Cousins' War. We
could be heading the same way ourselves and sadly it is the BBC which is drawing
up the battle lines at the moment, and if they cry war, then others will react.
But like the Yorkists and Lancastrians, British broadcasters are all in the
same family and Civil War is not what we want. So please, Lord Hall, stop the
rallying cries and get into discussion. The BBC is too important to go down
fighting.

If you want to keep OurBeeb debating the BBC, please chip in what you can afford.